[traject_]

>Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.

That ancestry comes from later interactions with West Eurasians and is at trace levels compared to the substantial 2-3% in non-Africans. This does not change the point that non-Africans received input from Neanderthals just before expansion outwards.

>The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of scientists. Admixture doesn't change that.

You've misread the article if you believe that. The point is that the total replacement model of out of Africa imagining a small band of hunter gatherers expanding out of an East Africa giving rise to all of humanity popular in the 2000s was proven wrong. The point was that single locus markers like mtDNA and Y-DNA can create biases that allowed for such a consensus that was changed by the whole genome of the Neanderthal. The ancient DNA we have now suggests a multi-regional model for modern human evolution within Africa.

The remainder of the post (other than the first nitpick) is non-substantive ideological claims that appears to be largely because Razib's politics lean conservative. Interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.

[throwaway4666]

The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that.

I just want to comment on this: opposing 'scientific racism' is an ideological claim now?! The dude has a pretty large record making claims about race and IQ and 'human biodiversity', works in an industry that's banking heavily on grifting money out of rich people with PGSes, and mainstream scientists debunking it are the ones being ideological? I feel like I'm dreaming here, imagine a Philip Morris lobbyist accusing you of being 'ideological' when you point out flaws in their 'actually cigarettes are pretty good for you' studies. (Wait, that actually happened)

[traject_]

> The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that.

No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. It is a matter of identifying major strands of ancestry within Africans (by admixture over thousands of years to now be in various African populations) which all are distinguished by a lack of Neanderthal DNA outside of West Eurasian admixture.

And for the last point, I did not condone scientific racism. To repeat, interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.

[throwaway4666]

Seeing how African populations are extremely diverse and we're just seeing the extent of it I would refrain from making such definitive statements.

>To repeat, interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.

That's a needlessly stilted PR-like statement that basically hides the meat of the whole 'controversy': behavioral and IQ differences between populations and their genetic origins. Khan has a position, mainstream scientists another. Oftentimes fallacious arguments are invoked involving 'but look at domestic animal breeds' (not unlike your repeated admonition that 'humans are animals' which I will assume is just a boring triviality on your part for the sake of charity).

[traject_]

> Seeing how African populations are extremely diverse and we're just seeing the extent of it I would refrain from making such definitive statements.

There's no reason to not. Holocene expansion of farming/pastoral populations all over the world (including Africa) has largely homogenized human ancestry into identifiable distinct strands that is in varying proportions. Africa is indeed diverse genetically but it is not magic or anything. It most likely comes from the earlier mentioned multi-regional model within Africa through drift and admixture with highly drifted populations. And almost all of these populations outside of those of North Africa were outside of the Neanderthal range and we have archeological evidence to support this as well. There is no logical reason to believe in an (outside of the obvious example of historic West Eurasian admixture in the Horn/North Africa) African population with non-trace levels of Neanderthal ancestry. High levels of diversity in Africa does not imply a significantly large population with non-trace levels of neanderthal ancestry.

[selimthegrim]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.10.012

[s1artibartfast]

>Seeing how African populations are extremely diverse and we're just seeing the extent of it I would refrain from making such definitive statements.

Finding a subpopulation within Africa with more Neanderthal DNA would not overturn the the fact that African populations in general have less of this DNA than elsewhere.

[selimthegrim]

"sub-Saharan Africans have some genetic differences from other clades" is not tantamount to scientific racism and you're doing yourself, them, genetics, and the scientific community a disservice. Neanderthal DNA is not magic fairy dust. The differences between Neanderthal and H. sapiens brain cell organelles in vitro are well known.

[bsanr]

>No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts.

Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror.

What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

[rayiner]

> Black Americans? Broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with the ginger whiskers I see every time I look in the mirror.

Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years.

> What is the value of slightly more Neanderthal DNA, anyway?

There isn’t any, which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it. It just validates particular models of human expansion out of Africa.

[bsanr]

>Who aren’t Africans, but for the most part are of mixed background of Africans and Europeans in the last 500 years.

Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African. To an extent. For different reasons, depending on who you ask, of course.

>Which is why it’s odd anyone is getting defensive about it.

Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.

[rayiner]

> Again, broad pronouncements like this square... strangely... with my skin color and facial features. I think you'll find it a hard sell to much of this country, within and without the scientific community, that black African-Americans are not... you know, African.

The average Black American is almost 1/4 European descent due to mixing that occurred recently. My son has light brown hair—because his mom is Irish and Dutch. They’re irrelevant to a discussion of the genetics of Bangladeshis.

> Assuming that you're an American, the notion that you don't understand the defensiveness strains credulity. It validates quite a bit more in the eyes of some.

Those folks need their eyes checked.

[xyzzyz]

> There isn’t any

I don’t think we can confidently state that currently. Given that substantial amount of admixture persisted so many generations, it is quite possible that there has been at least some evolutionary advantage associated with it. The rest of your comment, however, is correct: we have no reason to believe that humans with bigger admixture derive huge value from it today, and no reason to be defensive about not having it.

[AlotOfReading]

Not everything he says is wrong just because he has lots of nutty beliefs more generally. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything terribly controversial or wrong in the article.

[csee]

What specifically are you saying is an example of his scientific racism?

[clavicat]

It’s undeniable that racial egalitarianism is part and parcel of the ideological complex of the postwar world and its attendant ethical commitments also shape our scientific discourse. It might be correct in its claims, but anti-racism can absolutely form the basis for an ideology just like its opposite can.

The New Yorker published [a decent article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...) recently about a geneticist—not a “race scientist”—who has to contend with hysterical, hyperbolic backlash from progressive scholars for simply exploring the genetic components of human behavior. The fear is that her work will somehow rationalize racial and sexual inequalities, so it must be suppressed.

>“There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.” By the time he wrote again, several hours later, one of Harden’s few supporters among the fellows had changed the thread’s subject line from “new genetics paper” to “Seriously? Holocaust deniers?” Darity responded, “I feel just as strongly that we should not keep the notions that the world is 6000 years old or that climate change is a fabrication under consideration.”

What is that if not pure ideology?